No, on the contrary I'm saying that calls for nuance are often excuses to do bad statistics and bad science. Rather than throwing away our theories because the

No, on the contrary I'm saying that calls for nuance are often excuses to do bad statistics and bad science. Rather than throwing away our theories because they predict X and the world does Y, they instead say "actually the theory only applies under vague unspecified circumstances which you'd understand if you were as nuanced as I". Whether or not the theory fits the data, they cry "intersectionality" or "humans are so complex". In any case, your post begs the question. If we should ignore statistics, how should we make decisions? Emotionally pleasing verbal narratives? See also the related essay, "Pragmatism is Poison". It argues that the word "pragmatism" is used in software a lot to shut down discussion of bad choices, much the same way "nuance" is used to shut down discussion of good theories. https://einarwh.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/pragmatism-is-poison/ https://einarwh.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/pragmatism-is-poiso...